The disagreement must go in both directions, by definition. Or are you suggesting the accountants insisted on including the valuations, despite dissent from the club, then included a note implying it was an unusual thing to do? Strikes me as unlikely.



Indeed. Biggest red herring since Sherlock Holmes' 'Case of the Giant Crimson Kipper'.

As i understand it its nothing to do with accountants, the simple case here as youve hinted at with the red herring comment is that the auditors have said they wouldnt have shown it on accounts like we have.

Then why show them as such. Hull's total Fixed Assets show a value of £1,296,451 with an Intangible Asset value of £942,500 which the auditors qualify by saying [i'internally generated intangible assets should NOT be capitalised in the balance sheet[/i'. This clearly overstates the true value of the Total Fixed Assets.

Capitalising employees as assets on a balance sheet may not be against the law, but it is certainly not in accordance with the companies act of 1985.

Indeed its not.

Is it? Which section of the Act?

Is any action to be taken against Hull FC by the Registrar of Companies or by BERR?

Have the auditors resigned in protest at their advice being ignored, or will they be seeking re-appointment at the next AGM?

Leaving aside all these questions, I thought this thread was supposed to be about Rovers' accounts? Hull's accounts can be discussed on their forum.

According to you own appointed auditors, yes it is. In fact they further qualify it by saying in their opinion '[ithe intangible fixed assets should be removed, reducing the the fixed assets and reducing the capital and reserves by £942,500[/i'.

I don't think we disagree about what the auditors said Gordon. I was just asking what, if anything, is going to happen as a result?

Nothing.

Its just a clear case of creative accountancy.

Except in this case it wasn't the accountants who were being creative eh?

Indeed.

It does though enable Hull to return a positive final Balance Sheet

There is a fair amount of irony when someone with the screen name of Gordon Gekko cries foul about creative accountancy.

TBF, being £3.2m in debt with a further £450k loss to come, you can see why they'd want to change the subject to an accounting policy that FC have adopted for at least 6 years that impacts neither debt nor profitability.

And with consecutive league positions of 11th and 12th I can understand why Hull fans want to talk about accountancy!

Tbh, while I would like the opportunity to occasionally discuss the sport of rugby league [ias well[/i, I'm don't feel the need to change the subject.

I'm not sure whether those that are blind to the context in which the losses have been made frustrate me more than those who ignore the cost of all the onfield progress. To both of them I'd say 'For better or worse, Hull's financial situation affects Rovers not one jot, neither diminishing or exacerbating the problem.'
Rovers team has come on massively in recent seasons. Even as a business, they are already an average performer by SL's (admittedly low) standards. Now though, it seems, a move towards profitabilty is becoming increasingly necessary.

Really?

Or merely an illustration of the estimated value of the players to any interested party? For example, if the club was to be sold or go into liquidation, the potential buyers/administrators would need to know this figure.

It may not be a fixed asset, but it is an asset with a significant value. I'm actually puzzled as to why our clubs don't include this estimate on their balance sheet - it's a valid figure.

Think you'll find if a club went into liquidation all players become free agents. It is complete tosh to value players even more so to increase their value after two terrible seasons



There is absolutely NO significant asset value to a player because their value is all guesswork and never likely to be realised hence it being against accounting practice.

I tell you what is against normal advice , being near to £4m in debt when you only turnover about £2.3m and losing £450,000pa.
When Parasol stop funding you will be halving your wage bill to break even

TBF Rovers accounts are terrible there is no doubts about that and they don't have the luxury of a 25000 all seater stadium and 27 corporate boxes to generate income.

So where are all those clowns who were on here saying money was no object at Craven Park??

Tosh yourself. Administrators would sell off players pending liquidation in order to recoup as much as possible for the creditors. As well you know.

That was one example. Anyone wanting to buy into any club be it in administration or healthy would need to know the player valuation. Others with business interests in the club would ask for this figure.

Any estimate of valuation of any asset, be it players, property, vehicles furnishings - whatever - is partially subjective, so I'm not sure what your second point is. Similarly, most assets of a company are unlikely to realised, as most remain the property of that company, so I'm not sure about your third point either.

Rovers primary objective was to get into SL in the first place and stay there , to me regardless of the cost involved with the alternative not worth thinking about. With the downturn it is obvious to everyone including the directors that to manage the business and reduce debts then the long term future revolves around developing the local talent in this area. With a lot of expensive players coming off contract in 2010 next year is going to be very interesting.
The North stand development is critical in my opinion as supporters going through the gate do not cover all the costs . Corporate sponsorship must be increased , this will only take place when the stadium is developed to a suitable standard.
One option that Rovers could do and which has been adopted by other clubs is to not max out on the salary cap however this is a fine balancing act as our friends across the river have found out finishing 11TH & 12 TH .
Merchandising is another avenue which must be improved and I feel that the shop is far too small and apart from the new shirts old stock is still being sold, a missed opportunity for Xmas.
The introduction of Electronic turnstiles and the new membership scheme are all positive things that should be applauded .

All true, but FC have been doing it for at least 6 years with no apparent effect on anything. As we kinda concluded last time this was discussed, as cunning plans go it's right up there with Baldrick's best.

They're fooling no-one with even the faintest inkling of business or accountancy, and it all seems rather pointless.

Players are employees, not assets. Their contracts would become null and void if FC were to be liquidated, just like any other employee. The Administrator would have a hard time selling players that would become free agents if clubs just waited a few weeks. And even if they somehow managed to con some clubs into paying for a free resource, the valuations achieved would bear no relation to the figures given in the accounts.

Their value while the club is solvent is an asset, though. A club does not need to be in administration for this figure to become of interest. Kath has reputedly had the club up for sale on and off over the last few years - any buyer or investor would want to know the amount they could expect to get if any of the playing staff were transferred during their contracts.

So why do you think Hull include it?

More to the point why do they consistently go against their own accountants advice, why bother employing them if Hull fc know best.

Trying to get back on topic I find it strange that the publication of Rovers accounts has not been mentioned in the Hull Daily Mail or on Radio Humberside sports news. Has Hudge got to them? Was the subject raised on Sportstalk last night?